## Facts

- Johann Gruber, an Austrian farmer, used a farm building partly as a family dwelling and partly for agricultural activity.
- Gruber bought roof tiles from Bay Wa AG, a German building-materials seller, to retile the roof of that mixed-use building.
- Gruber alleged the tiles were nonconforming because of significant color variations despite a uniform-color warranty.
- Gruber sued Bay Wa in Austria and invoked the Brussels Convention’s special consumer-jurisdiction rules (Arts. 13–15) to sue in his domicile.
- An Austrian regional court accepted jurisdiction under the consumer provisions; an appellate court reversed, concluding Gruber was not acting as a consumer.
- The Austrian Supreme Court referred questions for a preliminary ruling on whether mixed-purpose purchases qualify as “consumer contracts” under Article 13(1) of the Brussels Convention.

## Issues

1. Whether a contract for goods intended partly for private use and partly for trade or professional use can fall within the Brussels Convention’s consumer-jurisdiction rules (Arts. 13–15).
2. If mixed use is involved, what standard determines whether the buyer may still be treated as a “consumer” under Article 13(1).
3. What evidence the national court must consider, and whether the seller’s knowledge or impressions affect consumer status.

## Decision

- The Court held that a person entering a mixed-purpose contract may not rely on Articles 13–15 unless the trade or professional purpose is so limited as to be negligible in the overall context of the supply.
- The predominance of the private element is irrelevant; the decisive question is whether the business purpose is more than negligible.
- The national court must decide, on the basis of objectively available evidence in the case file, whether the business purpose was non-negligible or negligible.
- In assessing consumer status, the national court should not consider facts merely because the seller may have known them at the time of contracting.
- An exception applies if the buyer acted so as to give the seller a legitimate impression that the buyer was contracting for business purposes; in that situation the buyer cannot rely on consumer jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Consumer-jurisdiction provisions in the Brussels Convention are interpreted strictly and apply only to contracts concluded outside and independently of any trade or professional purpose.
- Mixed-purpose contracts are excluded from Articles 13–15 unless the professional element is negligible in the overall context of the transaction.
- The “predominant purpose” test is rejected; predominance of private use does not establish consumer status if the business purpose is more than negligible.
- Whether the professional purpose is negligible is a fact-specific determination for the national court based on objective evidence.
- The counterparty’s awareness is generally irrelevant, except where the buyer’s conduct created a legitimate impression of business contracting.

## Conclusion

The Court confined consumer-jurisdiction protection for mixed-use contracts to situations where the trade or professional purpose is negligible, directing national courts to make an objective, evidence-based assessment and limiting reliance on the seller’s knowledge to cases of buyer conduct creating a legitimate impression of business use.


Gruber v. Bay Wa AG, Case C-464/01, 2005 E.C.R. I-439 (C.J. 2005)